As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Monday, April 04, 2011

KSM: Military Tribunal at Gitmo

Furthermore, Mohammad made a complete pre-capture torture-free confession (along with Ramzi Binalshibh) in a Pakistan safe house to Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in 2002, reported at the time and recounted in his book "Masterminds of Terror." Fouda was prepared to be a government witness in either venue. Finally, there was voluminous evidence implicating the five 9/11 Gitmo defendants introduced publicly in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in Virginia federal court five years ago.

Fouda has no credibility. He admitted that he lied in his articles about the date of the interview, and his tapes are very suspect.

James Drummond wrote in Financial Times: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’”

I've just been able to access a genuine copy of James Drummond's FT article (11th September 2002). Here it is:

'Doubts were voiced yesterday about the authenticity of videos broadcast by al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite television channel, which appeared to confirm that the al-Qaeda terrorist network was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the US.

The three videos, broadcast on Monday, showed some of the September 11 hijackers and one contained what the broadcaster said was the voice of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, claiming direct responsibility for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If genuine, the video would be the first time that Mr bin Laden has directly claimed direct responsibility for any of the bombings. In a tape obtained by US forces in Afghanistan last year, Mr bin Laden was heard telling followers about "calculations" to hit a tower - which many presumed to the World Trade Center - but there was no direct claim of responsibility.

But analysts cited the crude editing of the tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. The scepticism was deepened by al-Jazeera's silence yesterday about how it had obtained the videos.

Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: "I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI."'

'The release of the videos again highlights the central role of the television station in the continuing propaganda war between the US and supporters of Mr bin Laden.

The channel is planning to broadcast an interview this week with two men, Khaled Sheikh Muhammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, who are believed to say in the film that they were the planners behind the September 11 attacks.

In a filmed interview, the two say they had considered attacking nuclear facilities in the US rather than the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Of the videos shown on Monday, one purports to show four of the September 11 hijackers - Ahmed al-Nami, Hamza and Said al-Ghamidi and Wail al-Shihri - studying maps and flight manuals. Al-Jazeera said the footage was shot in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar "several months" before the bombings last year.

The second tape was said to be the "will" of Abdul Aziz al-Amari, another of the bombers, announcing his intention to carry out an attack.

A third showed still photographs of the four teams of hijackers in which, against a background of Koranic chanting, an unseen Mr bin Laden hailed the men as heroes. Additional reporting by Mark Huband in London Copyright Financial Times Limited 2002. All Rights Reserved'.

Drummond's article makes it clear that Dia Rashwan is not referring to Yosri Fouda's interview with KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh, which at the time of writing had yet to be broadcast.

This is why you don't rely on truthers and their sources, because they distort the evidence and make shit up.

Well if Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" published by Harper Collins mischaracterized Mr. Drummond's article, then I stand corrected. It appears that FT no longer hosts that article on their site.

So how did you obtain the Drummond article and why should we believe the personal affidavit of an anonymous intenet poster? (We shouldn't!) You didn't get it at amazonaws, by any chance? You call that a reliable source? That article doesn't mention Fouda at all!

'So how did you obtain the Drummond article and why should we believe the personal affidavit of an anonymous intenet poster? (We shouldn't!) You didn't get it at amazonaws, by any chance? You call that a reliable source? That article doesn't mention Fouda at all!'

My workplace (yes, that's right Brian, I've got something called a 'job') has access to the FT articles on Proquest. That's how I got it. Piece of piss.

You won't be able to get it from the FT site because they have a paywall policy. And seeing as you're an unemployed janitor, I doubt whether you could afford it yourself.

As for Fouda's interview, try reading this:

'The channel [that's Al Jazeera] is planning to broadcast an interview this week with two men, Khaled Sheikh Muhammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, who are believed to say in the film that they were the planners behind the September 11 attacks'.

Your original source misrepresented the article in the 'FT' and - cretin that you are - you didn't bother to check.

This is just one of many examples in which so-called 'truthers' have distorted or misrepresented their sources to prove their point.

If you're gutted about the fact that you've been made to look stupid yet again, I've got nothing to say to you except the following. Get used to it, because this will be the story of what's left of your pathetic excuse for a life.

Garry, I'm sorry but the claims of an anonymnous internet poster are meaningless. If you had any integrity you would have called Ian out for lying months ago--but you didn't and you don't. There's no more reason for me to believe your claims about the FT article than I should believe Willie Rodriguez's claims about anything.

Get to people lying about 9/11? I am used to it. There's no reason to believe your claims.

TR, the old bromide about military justice is that it's like military music. Trying him in a military tribunal leaves the suspicion that he would not have been convicted by a civilian court.

Brian, that article is genuine. Do you think that I would go to the extent of making up a fake article in an internationally renowned newspaper just to prove a point? You really, really need medical help for your problems.

Garrt, the claims of an anonymous internet poster as to the authenticity of a text are meaningless to anyone with any smarts at all--but such "evidence" seems highly compelling to people who want to be convinced of what they already believe.

You didn't have to make up anything. You could have copied it from the amazonaws page.

Sure Garry, just as soon as you go to the NOVA interview with Shyam Sunder, go to 0;55, hear Sunder say that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and then tell Ian to STFU and stop lying about 9/11.

Just as soon as you go to justicefor911.org Appendix 4 and see that 271 of the widows' 300 questions were not answered, and then tell Ian to STFU and stop lying about 9/11,

David, I didn't claim any expertise in military justice. I quoted Groucho Marx and asked a rhetorical question.

Where do you get the idea that expertise comes from relatives?

So, do you think KSM is going to get a presumption of innocence in a military tribunal, and do you think he has a chance in hell of being found not guilty, which would be an admission that nine years of war in Afghanistan was a lie? Don't you think the military has just a leetle bit of a conflict of interest in this matter?

Isn't a trial with a predetermined outcome nothing more than a show trial?

'No Garry, I didn't ignore it. In fact I took steps to notify Paul Thompson so he could look into it'.

Yeah, and like all the honest decent folk in the 'troof' movement - all those clowns who have never, ever, willingly twisted the evidence to suit their version of events - he will issue an immediate correction, and will also consult all the other sources he cites to check he's got them right.

'But I'm not going to take the say-so of an anonymous internet poster for anything--especially one who doesn't even have the integrity to slap down blatant liars like Ian and GuitarBill'.

Brian, I've told you how to check that the story I gave you was the right one. You don't want to do that, because you know that - yet again - you'll be found out.

'How about you--do you think there's any chance KSM will get a presumption of innocence in the military court, and isn't a court without the presumption of innocence simply a formal lynch mob?'

In a court of law, if the defendant pleas 'guilty', that's the end of the story. KSM admitted responsibility for 9/11 well before he was arrested. It's only retards and losers like yourself who fail to accept that.

Garry, policing Yosri Fouda's lies is not my first priority right now. He admitted he lied about the date of the interview, and so I will regard him as about as credible as Willie Rodriguez.

I think Paul Thompson has an interest in keeping his timeline fact-based. The facts are damning as it is, so there is no reason to waste credibility on exaggerations or misrepresentations.

A guilty plea is the end of the story if it's made in a court of law. The hearsay account of an admitted liar is hardly equivalent to a plea in court. People make false confessions to crimes all the time.

David, how do you know the military didn't decide to go to war? There's no question that they were calling the shots with respect to this latest surge in Afghanistan.

UtterFail I'm calling you a blatant liar. Your claims that the percentages in the RJ Lee report were by weight became a blatant lie when you refused to admit you were wrong. Your claim that you had proven that fly ash was used in all of the concrete at the WTC was a blatant lie.

'Garry, policing Yosri Fouda's lies is not my first priority right now. He admitted he lied about the date of the interview'

Of course he did. It was probably a precondition from the interviewees, who at the time were on the run from most of the globe's law and intelligence services. Other journalists getting interviews from the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents have used a similar approach, deliberately fudging the date and time in the process.

But what you can't do is claim that the interview itself - or KSM's admission of guilt - was fabricated.

Garry, Fouda didn't have to lie. He could have said "the interview was conducted sometime over the last three months. The exact circumstances are being withheld for security reasons."

I didn't say the interview was fabricated. But because Fouda lied, his credibility is not good. Besides, people make false confessions all the time. Maybe KSM had strategic reasons to do so--to see how fast and how wide the story would spread, for instance. In any case, a hearsay account under no circumstances carries the weight of a guilty plea in court.

Your BBC report says that after announcing his intention to confess, KSM then refused to do so. Sounds like a publicity stunt. He also said he did not trust the judge, and could not work his his military lawyer, an Irag vet.

Would you mind citing an actual lie by Paul Thompson, who you call an "habitual liar"? If some overworked volunteer flubbed on a document summary, that's hardly a lie from Thompson.

And what's with your selective outrage? How come you never comment on the habitual lies of Ian and GutterBall?

In fact, all you've ever done is resort to a straw man arguments that blatantly misrepresent my propositions; then you "refute" the propositions you falsely attribute to me, without ever refuting my original proposition.

No, I'm not lying UtterFail. But you are, when you call me a sex predator and a goat molester.

I have shown that you lied about the RJLee report when you claimed emphatically that the 6% figure for iron microspheres was by weight. You have also lied when you claimed you proved that fly ash was used in all the WTC concrete.

And now you're going to lie by claiming that I misrepresented your positions.

You are also hypocritical in claiming that there was something dishonest about me citing information from a report that has conclusions with which I disagree, then turning around and yourself citing data from a report that has conclusions with which you disagree.

I didn't wreck any homes and didn't harass anybody, UtterFail. Ms. Brouillet complained of what she perceived to be my attitude, She was mistaken.

You admit that there's no grounds for regarding the Fouda interview as fake, and your rationale for KSM's repeated admissions of guilt (before and after capture) are something that only a mentally disturbed janitor could come up with.

As for the boo-hoo about Paul Thompson, he either failed to check his source before he made his claim - in which case he's as much of a spastic as you are - or he deliberately misrepresented it. Makes me wonder how often these 'mistakes' crop up in his 'research'.

Garry, you're missing the point. Just because we don't have summary executions in the street doesn't mean it's not a military junta. How much of the military budget was threatened in the recent $60 billion/ $30 billion cuts controversy?

I never said Fouda's interview was completely fabricated. Why would I say such a stupid thing? I said Fouda was an admitted liar despite the fact that it was not necessary for him to lie. His claims about his alleged interview are thus rather suspect.

People frequently confess to crimes falsely. That's a fact. I have no need to speculate about what their motives were.

Members of the truth movement are extremely overworked. I went through a period of months on three and four hours of sleep a night.

I'm sorry you guys can't handle epistemic nuance. Maybe if you'd ponder some of the differences between known knows, unknown unknowns, known unknowns, and unrecognized knowns your statements would be a little more intelligent.

UtterFail, you own nothing but your own ignorance. You're not even man enough to own your errors. You claimed that all 424,000 tons of concrete was destroyed at WTC, and you haven't a clue about why that's impossible.

You claimed that column 79 held up the entire east end of WTC7 when anybody who'd even so much as visited in a high rise building would know that notion is absurd.

You're reduced to sputtering grade-school insults.

I'm calling you a liar, and the fact that no one else does is irrelevant. No one else calls Ian a liar either, though he lies blatantly and persistently. What a pair of gunsels you two make--Ian lies because he thinks it's funny and you lie because you think it's smart.

'Members of the truth movement are extremely overworked. I went through a period of months on three and four hours of sleep a night'.

Brian, it is not my fault - or that of anyone else - that you, Thompson and assorted nut-jobs, social failures and borderline psychopaths have wasted your lives since September 2001 trying to prove - against the vast weight of evidence - that anyone other than AQ was responsible for 9/11.

Your decade of distress would be touching were it not for the fact that it is self-inflicted.

I can only repeat again my suggestion that you seek medical help from a professional who specialises in mental health problems. It's the only thing to stop you from going full-on with a Travis Bickle.

PS: The Fouda interview is real, and KSM's admission of responsibility (and pride in his handiwork) is real. Deal with it.

Garry, al Qaeda did not cripple the air defenses of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Use of hijacked airliners as as missiles was not only anticipated, it was the subject of NORAD drills, even an airliner-into-WTC scenario.

Hamilton and Kean wrote that they were so upset by NORAD's lies to the 9/11 Commission that theuy considered referring the matter to the DoJ for a criminal investigation.

That you can not see the absurdity of the bald assertions of an anonymous internet poster as to the journalistic claims of an admitted liar only further demonstrates why you should not be granted any credibility at all.

Fouda didn't have to lie. He could have simply been vague about the date of the interview. That he gave away his credibility so easily shows that he never had any.

UtterFail, you lied 4/12 at 1:09 in the April Gallop thread when you wrote: "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7." That is not true, and it is not a mistake. You wrote as if you knew what you were talking about and you didn't. It was a lie.

You lied when you claimed that the RJ Lee report's measure of microspheres was by weight.

You lie when you claim that I lie.

You still don't know why the NRDC figure of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is impossible, do you? And you can't even find an authority well-enough informed to clue you in.

The goat fucker continues to lie after being proven wrong, and scribbles, "...UtterFail, you lied 4/12 at 1:09 in the April Gallop thread when you wrote: "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

The NIST Report proves that you're a liar, gay boy--and I quote:

"...Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse...The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7...Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." -- NCSTAR1A, page 67.

Thus, we can see that it was only necessary for one column to fail--column 79A--in order for the global collapse to proceed. It's also clear that "the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." Hence, contrary to your lying assertions, fire played a major role in the collapse. In addition, we can see that your post at 8:26 completely and wantonly misrepresents the contents of the NIST Report.

UtterFail, you continue to quote-spam, citing material that has nothing to do with your lying claim that "Column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

Did anyone ever tell you that you're the one who tries to hide what you don't know to begin with?

Another bald-faced lie. I've stated over-and-over again that column 79A was a critical column--and the NIST Report on WTC 7 also states that column 79A was a critical column.

And here's the proof that you're lying:

"...That's right, sex predator, be sure to conveniently omit that column 79A was considered a critical column because column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7."

The following passage from the NIST Report proves that I'm right and you're wrong:

"...Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse...The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7...Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." -- NCSTAR1A, page 67.

All you have is worthless opinion, lies, gay squeal spam and intellectual dishonesty.

There's a good reason why you can't quote an authoritive source to back your position. You're a liar.

You haven't proven anything, gay boy. You haven't proven that I quote mined anything, and you've utterly failed to provide one scintilla of evidence to show that the failure of the critical column didn't initiate the global collapse. All you offer are lies, logical fallacies and your worthless opinion.

You're merely attempting to bury your latest exposure as a liar, fraud and a con artist under an avalanche of gay squeal spam--you no account felcher?

You lied when you wrote, "...There were at least three columns (79, 80, and 81) holding up the floors at the eastern end of WTC7, and it would be more accurate to say six columns (76-81)."

Six columns? That's a bald faced lie.

You also lied when you claimed that I never said column 79A was critical column.

In addition, you lied when you claimed the failure of column 79A wasn't responsible for initiating the global collapse. You also mislead the reader when you ignored another very important fact: Of the three columns, column 79, 80 and 81, column 79 was the critical column.

And that's only four lies that I care to document. The fact is that you lie constantly, and when caught lying you either rationalize the lie or directly contradict yourself.

Six columns, oh Mr. Never-Can-Be Wrong. Some of us avoid being wrong by avoiding saying stupid things, and some of us (you) have to settle for lying about what we said to try to cover over the fact that we were wrong.

Six columns hold up "entire east section of World Trade Center building 7" that you claimed in the April Gallop thread (4/12 1:09) were supported by "column 79A ALONE".

We've already been over this, and you're just engaging in obfuscatory repeat-spam.